Hilary Benn: The UK's position on the border question between Ethiopia and Eritrea remains that the boundary commission decision is final and binding, and that both parties should discuss the issues that separate them. On the Ethiopian elections, we have made clear our view that the complaints investigation process should be completed as soon as possible, that the deaths resulting from civil disturbances should be investigated, and that those detained should either be released or charged. Until the situation is clearer, I am putting on hold plans to increase budget support this year by £20 million.

Hilary Benn: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. When I was in Ethiopia two weeks ago, I spent an hour with Prime Minister Meles discussing those issues. The decision that I have taken to hold for the time being the increase in budget support is in recognition of the real crisis there. Currently, there is no election result, with many claims and many complaints about the electoral process. The only way to resolve those, and to allow the voice of the Ethiopian people to be heard, is for the national election board to complete its work. In the meantime, we very much hope that the countries will not return to fighting each other, because the real issue in Ethiopia is fighting poverty.

Hilary Benn: A large number of people who were arrested have now been released—about 2,700 according to our best estimate—and about 1,500 people are still in detention. My hon. Friend is right that 8 July is the date by which the result is supposed to be declared, but given that 140 complaints have now been approved by the national election board for investigation, and that there is a full process to allow those investigations to take place, including rights to appeal, it is hard to see the results being declared by 8 July. What everyone wants is for the process to proceed to a successful conclusion—namely, the voice of the people being heard and the results being declared. In the circumstances, it is right to wait and watch, and to see what the outcome is.

Hilary Benn: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's close interest in Ethiopia and agree with him that until polling day and what happened afterwards, the election process was quite remarkable, with 1 million people demonstrating in Addis, and the opposition winning every seat in the capital and having access to the media for the first time. In the context of the history of Ethiopia, that was an extraordinary change, which makes the violence and arrests, including of workers of the Coalition for Unity and Democracy, the main opposition party, who are needed to participate in the national election board process, a source of such concern. I can assure him, however, that I will keep a close eye on the situation and that we remain firmly committed to our development partnership with Ethiopia, as the challenges are enormous. Currently, through support to the safety net programme of £70 million over three years, we are helping to give food and money to people so that they can improve their lives.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: I recently attended a presentation in Northern Ireland on the report of the Commission for Africa. Some of the non-governmental organisations represented at that meeting expressed concern about the failure of international Governments to address the issue of education, even though targets have been set. Last year, I, like many other Members, visited schools to promote the objectives that the international community has set in order to improve education in developing countries. Can the Minister give us an update on what our Government are doing to ensure that education is a priority in the effort to improve governance in the continent of Africa, and in other developing parts of the world?

Hilary Benn: The criteria are, first, that the money that we give in aid should go towards poverty reduction; secondly, that human rights and international obligations are upheld; and thirdly, that there is strong financial management and action on corruption. We write such conditions into our aid agreements. We have already discussed Ethiopia, and I have decided to hold back some of the budget support in respect of Uganda and Sierra Leone, because progress there has not been sufficiently great. We are also working in countries such as Nigeria, Malawi, Sierra Leone and Zambia to provide practical support for the anti-corruption commissions, because tacking corruption is fundamental to good governance.

Andrew George: While hectoring others on governance, will the Secretary of State reassure the House that Britain will itself sign up and will encourage other G8 nations to sign up to the United Nations convention against corruption? Will he also assure us that the Government's practices on arms sales will ensure that—in future, unlike at present—we do not provide arms to regimes in developing countries that are persistently abusing human rights?

Hilary Benn: On arms sales, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Export Control Act 2002 provides a very strong framework, under which we take decisions based on the purpose for which the weapons will be used. If they are to be used for conflict or internal repression, we refuse licences. On the UN convention, we are committed to ratifying it; we have tightened up our money laundering legislation; and we have given the UK courts jurisdiction over UK nationals who engage in bribery overseas. The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 will allow for the speedier freezing of assets and we are now putting in place better arrangements to help developing countries to repatriate money that has been stolen from them. All those are indications of our commitment to act to tackle corruption.

Nick Palmer: Does my right hon. Friend accept, as I think he will, that the issue is extremely complex? To anticipate today's question 6, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor), does the Secretary of State agree that we also have to avoid imposing unreasonable restrictions on how the Governments of developing countries perform? What we are trying to do is to make them honest while respecting their right to independence. Does my right hon. Friend agree?

Lynne Featherstone: Do the Government recognise that there is now a need for peace enforcement action by the UN Security Council to provide for a substantive increase in the African Union presence in Darfur, and a stronger mandate? Without that, the situation there is so unstable and insecure that hundreds of thousands of refugees and internally displaced people will not feel safe, and are unlikely to return.

Mark Simmonds: The terrible human suffering continues to intensify in Darfur, and the Secretary of State has said already that up to 3.5 million people are likely to face food shortages between August and October. We welcome the Government's increased contribution to the AU mission in Darfur and fully support the expansion of the AU force. We are also encouraged by the decision of the International Criminal Court to investigate war crimes suspects. However, the Sudanese Government have responded by setting up a special criminal court that has met with huge international scepticism. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that that court will not deter or deflect the international community from bringing to justice the people who perpetrated such appalling atrocities in Darfur?

Tony Blair: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Tony Blair: It is important that they receive their compensation properly. That was one of the changes that this Government introduced when we came to office. Tens of thousands of miners had suffered as a result of having worked in the mines and, thanks to this Government, they received the compensation to which they were entitled. Of course, that compensation should go only to those who are entitled to get it, but billions of pounds has been paid out to people who desperately needed our help in some of our poorest constituencies.

Michael Howard: The Prime Minister and I agree on the importance of both aid and trade in helping developing countries lift themselves out of poverty. The next session of world trade talks takes place in December. The UN Task Force on Trade has said:
	"Developing countries are at a disadvantage in representing their interests and participating effectively in the negotiations due to resource constraints."
	In other words, they do not have the money to hire the expertise they need to fight their corner at the talks.
	Yesterday I wrote to the Prime Minister giving him notice that I would raise today our proposal for an advocacy fund that would enable developing countries to pay for the expertise they need. Will he consider that proposal in advance of the G8 summit next week?

Tony Blair: We must distinguish between the question of a separate fund, and the need to give those countries help as well as make the case on trade and enable them to gear themselves up for the opening up of markets. On the latter point we are in total agreement, and that is why we have been providing such help. For example, I understand that there was a trade ministerial meeting in Zambia a short time ago in which, together with the Swedes and the Canadians, we specifically gave help in order for developing countries to have the resource necessary to put their case effectively. The question is not whether we should give that help; the question is, is it best to establish a separate fund or are we best offering help as we do now, on the basis of our own bilateral links with individual countries and through the European Union? All I am saying is that judging from the representations that we have received, we are best to maintain our current arrangements, without setting up a separate fund. Indeed, I think the developing countries worry that such a fund would set bureaucratic hurdles in their way.
	I totally agree with what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says and, in terms of the general point and what the UN Task Force on Trade says, we are providing that help now. I am asked whether it would be better to provide that help through a separate fund. The advice that I have is that it would not.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The Bridgend area in south Wales has for a long time been one of the leading places in Wales in terms of job creation, employment and economic growth. Today, however, we have had the devastating news that one of our large inward investors, Sony in Bridgend and Pencoed, which has employed hundreds of the work force over 30 years, has made the sad decision that because of the decline in old-fashioned tube technology for colour television, it will be sacrificing up to 650 jobs.
	Will the Prime Minister join me in extending his thanks to the work force of Sony Bridgend, who are very skilled and hard-working? Will he also use his good offices to work with the Secretary of State for Wales and the Welsh Assembly Government to do what this Government do well, which is to put in place a rescue package for that work force to provide the high-paid, high-skill jobs that will lead Bridgend into a good future for that work force and their families?

Tony Blair: I am sorry that my hon. Friend's constituents have lost their jobs at Bridgend, and he is absolutely right in saying that it is our responsibility as a Government to put in place a proper package of support and help. I know that he will have meetings with Ministers, and I am happy to see him myself about that and to ensure that we put in place every assistance that we possibly can. The situation is particularly tragic since it comes at a time when, yet again, this country has been designated No. 1 for foreign direct investment in the European Union—so we are drawing in jobs. Unfortunately, however, for the reasons to which he rightly draws attention, the changing way that the market is working means that it is very hard for people to remain secure in their jobs, even with excellent companies, such as Sony. However, we will certainly do everything that we can to help people in that situation.

Tony Blair: Of course, the Inland Revenue must not act unlawfully, but my understanding is that the code of practice makes it clear that if the error is on the part of the Government rather than the recipient, there is not a recovery. [Hon. Members: "No."] I will look carefully at the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, and come back to him.

Michael Howard: I was asking the right hon. Gentleman about his personal election address at that election and about two completely different views that he expressed within days of each other. He is doing the same now. On 8 June, he said that the UK rebate would remain and would not be negotiated away—"Period." Two days later he said everything was open to debate as long as there was a fundamental review of the common agricultural policy. Now he talks of negotiating on the rebate in exchange for some promise of discussions on the CAP in 2008. On which of those shifting positions will he take a stand?

Martin Linton: When the Prime Minister goes to Singapore, will he pass on to Lord Coe and his team the good wishes of millions of Londoners and, I am sure, of millions of people in all parts of Britain, and the support of nearly every Member of the House for the bid for the 2012 Olympics, which would not only bring the world's greatest sporting event to the UK but would leave a lasting legacy for sport and for our transport infrastructure, specifically the East London line extensions—

Patrick Cormack: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As every Member of this House, including the Prime Minister and indeed you Sir, Mr. Speaker, could have been faced with little local difficulties similar to my own, will the Prime Minister and his Government look with sympathy upon the ten-minute Bill that I will present to the House to address those difficulties?

Tony Blair: As it was made clear in our manifesto, we are pressing for universal access to AIDS treatment—in fact, by 2010. However, to make progress we need the international community to work together to help to ensure that there are enough health clinics, doctors, nurses and drugs to reach all people with AIDS in the poorest countries.

Peter Luff: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We all accept that the difficult circumstances of terrorism that we now face lead to the Prime Minister requiring increased security: the happy days when Prime Ministers such as Sir John Major could occasionally walk from Downing street to the House of Commons have gone. However, the level of security now surrounding the Prime Minister's entourage making the journey here is now causing real inconvenience to the general public, as all access roads to Parliament square are closed for many minutes. Perhaps more relevant to you, Mr. Speaker, that means that Members of Parliament are also inhibited from making the journey to the House of Commons. Today, it was clear that the police officer who tried to stop me accessing the House had no idea of the Sessional Order that we passed on 23 November, as we do at the start of every Parliament, and that he did not intend to allow me to pass. Can you examine this problem as a matter of some urgency, Mr. Speaker? I believe that other hon. Members were detained in their cars and were unable to reach the House.

Steve Webb: I beg to move,
	That this House notes with concern the crisis in NHS dentistry, together with problems in accessing other primary care services; recognises that many dentists chose to undertake more private practice as a consequence of the new contract introduced under the Conservatives in 1990 and the subsequent reduction in dentists' fees in 1992; notes that the Conservative government closed two dental schools; further notes that the number of adults registered with an NHS dentist fell by five million between 1994 and 1998; recalls the Prime Minister's pledge in 1999 that 'everyone within the next two years will be able once again to see an NHS dentist just by phoning NHS Direct', but notes that less than half the adult population is now registered with an NHS dentist; and calls on the Government to work with the dentistry profession to ensure that the new contract delivers more dentists spending more time working in the NHS.
	As one who is relatively new to shadowing the Department of Health, it strikes me that NHS dentistry is a subject that I can get my teeth into—[Hon. Members: "Oh!"] I should add that it is good to have a Minister of the Crown responding to the debate. The Minister will know that all is not well in the world of dentistry. At oral questions—appropriately enough—a couple of weeks ago, the first question was about dentistry in south-west Devon, the seventh was about dentistry in Hertfordshire, the eighth about dentistry in the Isle of Wight, the tenth about dentistry in Milton Keynes and the seventeenth about dentistry in Leicestershire.

Steve Webb: I can feel a Liberal Democrat survey coming on. [Interruption.] Indeed, and a petition—perhaps that will come later.
	There is clearly a substantial problem with NHS dentistry, and I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's friendly intervention. I remind the House that the rot set in—if I can use that phrase—some years ago. It is widely accepted that the problem started in the early 1990s, when dentistry fees and contracts were changed. The change was well intentioned—instead of dentists simply receiving a set amount for every filling or treatment, there was a per patient element, which undermined the inducement to do more work just for the sake of it. The thinking was right, but the implementation failed, because budgets spiralled. Only a couple of years later, dentists' fees were cut and, as a result, they started to leave the NHS. The National Audit Office says that
	"in the early 1990s, many dentists reduced their commitment to the NHS".
	A long-term problem has therefore developed under successive Governments of both larger parties.

Steve Webb: If the hon. Lady would allow me to develop my argument a little, I shall certainly give way.
	The situation was probably not helped in 1992 by the previous Government's decision to close two dental schools. The Conservatives sometimes demand more NHS dentistry and more places in dental schools. I do not know whether dental treatment generates amnesia, but they display plenty of it on the subject. In 1997, a bright, shiny, new Government came to power, with all sorts of new ideas. Immediately, they introduced an Act of Parliament—if in doubt, legislate. The National Health Service (Primary Care) Act 1997 created personal dental services—so called, because no person can access them—with the aim of trying to tackle the legacy of a decline in NHS dentistry. Two years later, we were given something that everyone fears—a promise from the Prime Minister, who said in 1999 that
	"everyone within the next two years will be able . . . to see an NHS dentist just by phoning NHS direct".
	It is not obvious how one could see a dentist by phoning NHS Direct, but we were promised that everyone would be able to do so two years after 2001. Six years later, however, NHS dental registrations are at low levels, and there is little sign of an upturn.

Steve Webb: No, I have said that I want to make some progress.
	The conclusion of the Which? report on emergency access to dentistry is:
	"At best, many people needing urgent care are forced to go private, often at considerable cost. At worst, serious problems could go untreated, at significant risk to the general health of individuals concerned."
	We have a real problem with emergency access. The Prime Minister has said that the answer to the problem is NHS Direct. The number of calls to NHS Direct about dentistry has risen by three quarters over the past couple of years. That is clearly a symptom, not, as the Government's amendment to the motion suggests, of everyone getting a better service, but of far more people having to turn to the hotline number because they cannot get the regular service that they used to have. I have another interesting statistic here, and I apologise if Members know it already: toothache is now the fourth most common reason for ringing NHS Direct. That, too, is a symptom of a system that is not working.
	What does NHS Direct have to do to keep the Prime Minister's promise? It has to give the caller the name of a dentist, according to what are called "locally agreed standards", but what does that mean? In a rural area, that means a dentist within 50 miles. That could involve someone making a 100-mile round trip to see a dentist in a rural area, yet it gets a tick in the box for the Government's targets. How absurd! We also find that the data on the website might not be accurate or reliable, and that the Government are not checking whether people are getting the service that they need, because they are not following up the inquiries. A person might ring up NHS Direct and be given the name of a dentist, but the Government do not then monitor whether the person is able to access that dentist, whether they actually do so, or whether they register with them.
	The Government have said that, because there is a struggle to get enough NHS dentists, they will introduce something called "dental access centres". There are already 40 or 50 of these in various cities, and anyone who does not have a dentist can turn up at one. But are they good value for money? Surely anyone who goes to one because there is nowhere else to go will think so, but is this as good as seeing a dentist regularly? A dentist I spoke to recently told me that, typically, it cost £50 to deal with one NHS patient, while the cost at one of these dental access centres is £160 per patient. So three regular NHS patients could be treated at a surgery for the price of treating one at an access centre. This is a very expensive sticking plaster solution to the underlying problem.

Steve Webb: I am about to conclude my remarks.
	One of those dental practices would only take children under the age of three. We have therefore reached an extraordinary stage. What strikes me most is that dentists are telling us that they must turn away people who come to register, and who are in genuine need, because the provision and capacity are not there. The fact that the Government can table an amendment saying that everybody is getting a better service marks an extraordinary level of complacency and shows that they are not in touch.
	In conclusion, this is a long-term problem that started under the previous Government but has been neglected for far too long under this Government. If it takes five or six years to train a dentist, action should have started years ago. Desperate measures are now being taken to fill the gap while dentists come on-stream. The normal understanding is that the NHS is based on two basic principles: that there is universal local access, and that it is free at the point of use. That is not the experience of the majority of our constituents with regard to NHS dentistry, and this Government should be held to account for it.

Rosie Winterton: My hon. Friend is right. As usual, the Liberal Democrats are quick to jump on the bandwagon but not so quick to come up with a solution. Perhaps they are following a new trend in making uncosted spending commitments. Their new habit is not having a policy at all. We were astonished by the so-called alternative programme that they presented to us.
	There is no doubt that the drift of NHS dentists to the private sector has caused real problems in parts of the country. That is why, in 2002, following wide consultation with the dental profession among others, we published the paper "Options for Change", which was implemented through the Health and Social Care Act 2003. I will explain how those measures will fundamentally reform and modernise our dentistry system.

Rosie Winterton: I certainly will. I am sure that the people of Dukinfield are benefiting greatly from the changes that my hon. Friend outlined, and it is good to see local PCTs taking that sort of initiative. All PDS applications are processed through the Department. Sometimes there are delays if the Department wishes to get further information in order to ensure that good quality services and value for money are being offered. There may be some delays and I shall look carefully into the points that he raised. As I said earlier, from October this year, 170 extra under-graduates are starting their dental degree and we are considering applications for a new dental school.
	Since last April, the equivalent of approximately 830 additional dentists are treating NHS patients through a mixture of domestic returners, international recruits and additional NHS commitment from existing dentists. Another 117 Polish recruits are due to take up posts in England between now and the end of October, so we are well on the way to meeting the 1,000 target.

John Grogan: I have never been to Cheadle in my life, so I cannot contribute to that aspect of our discussions, but I will try to convey a flavour of the situation across the Pennines, in Yorkshire, on this issue. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) and I listened to both his speech and that of the hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb) with great care.
	The hon. Member for Westbury made some interesting points. He said that Governments make decisions on the basis of the best available evidence. They certainly should, but that seems to me to be a rather technocratic approach to government. Decision making must be guided by a political will, a political vision and a political strategy. In response to some of the criticisms by the hon. Member for Northavon, I honestly do not think that as a Government we focused on dentistry soon enough, and it took a while to put the political strategy and the vision into place. But I think that we are there now, and the next year will be crucial. If I have one criticism of the hon. Gentleman's speech, it would be that he was a little bit easy on some of the practices of dentists down the years. At times he sounded like a spokesman for the British Dental Association, which has a long and proud record and many members who are committed to the NHS, but dentists, like Governments of all colours, have lessons to learn from the past 20 years. I intend to reflect on that in some of my remarks.
	But I promised to impart a little bit of the flavour of the situation in Yorkshire. To be very parochial for a minute if the House will allow me, I think that in Selby and York, my local primary care trust, the commissioning that the Government have brought in is making a difference and is working. That is one thing that has improved in the past seven or eight years. It does give a very local focus. It enables MPs, councillors and others to speak to the decision makers, to get down to the detail of where NHS dentists are, where there are gaps and where improvements could be made.
	In Selby and York, for example, 15,000 extra places have been approved under personal dental schemes for the next three years. It appears that they will be delivered within the next year, and I understand that we will be up to about 56 per cent. coverage in Selby and York. We want to get a little higher than that, but that will not be bad in comparison with a lot of other areas in the country.
	One dentist, Mr. Kelsey, made it on to the front page of the Yorkshire Post. The Minister and I discussed his case over tea and biscuits for no less than 45 minutes, and I bring her good news. He wants to retire. He could not find someone to buy his practice. He tells me that he is committed to that practice transferring to the NHS. A buyer has now been found, with two dentists in that practice, and the local PCT will propose a personal dental scheme to the Department that, I hope, will be approved, so that the 5,000 places that would have been lost in Selby can be replaced, possibly on a like-for-like basis.
	If I have one criticism of some PCTs, it is that the local delivery of dentistry is important. It is not acceptable to have to take long journeys, perhaps on two or three buses, to get to a dentist. In rural areas, it is important that NHS dentistry is available in market towns, such as Selby, Sherburn and Tadcaster in my area.
	I want to make two suggestions for improving the situation in Yorkshire. We have heard a lot about queues forming outside dentists' surgeries when they open up for additional NHS places. In some areas, PCTs have introduced waiting lists—Doncaster may be one of them, but there are certainly other examples throughout the country—whereby people who want an NHS dentist go on to a waiting list. Instead of having to queue or ring up every two or three weeks as the situation changes, those people will be informed—in a short period, we hope—when extra NHS places become available in the locality. I urge my own PCT in Selby and York to consider that development, which makes the system much more civilised and efficient. It allows a certain degree of preference to be given to local people to gain access to dentists in their own areas.
	Clearly, the expansion of training places in dental schools is important. In both Leeds and Sheffield, expansion is occurring by a factor of about a third in the coming year. It would be remiss of me not to put in a plug for the merits of the very successful medical school at York and Hull. Indeed, one of the bids for a new dental school comes from York and Hull. I know that other hon. Members would advocate different areas, but that is a particularly good bid from God's own county.
	I want to make a few comments about the nature of dentistry and dentists themselves. We are coming into an absolutely crucial period for the negotiations during the next few months. I remind the House that, despite the problems of the past few years, NHS dentists earn, on average, £75,000 or £76,000—considerably more than MPs—and most of them also do private work. We are talking about relatively highly paid people, many of whom are very much committed to the NHS, but it takes two to tango in negotiations, and there is a high expectation among Labour Back Benchers that, if the Minister puts a reasonable offer to dentists, as I am sure she will, they should respond in kind. That will involve changes in working practices.
	If we look back over the past eight years, another thing that has become apparent, for whatever reason, is drill-and-fill—I think that was the phrase mentioned by the Minister. Numerous reports, dating back to one in 2000 in the NHS prepared by Aubrey Sheiham, professor of public health at University college London, refer to practices such as dentists
	"inflicting £200 million of extra scaling, X-rays and fillings on patients to boost earnings",
	and an economic model encouraged them to do so. The report states:
	"Studies show that dentists replace fillings far more than necessary, and that if they suffer a drop in income, they will replace their patients' fillings more frequently."
	There were economic incentives for dentists to adopt such an approach, but that will not happen under the new contract, and nor should it. Perhaps some patients will be seen less frequently. If there is less dental need for them to be seen every six months, perhaps a check-up every year or so will be sufficient, and a lot of dentists who are committed to the NHS realise that.
	It is interesting that perhaps one of the better puns that has been coined in this respect appeared in the Yorkshire Post headline "Dentists set to bare their teeth". The Yorkshire Post has been running quite an effective campaign called stop the rot—a rather more hackneyed phrase—but nevertheless it has been pointing out some of the things that hon. Members on both sides of the House have mentioned today: the expansion of dental places, the need for a new contract and so on.
	A few weeks ago, the front page of that paper commented on an attempt by the leadership of the British Dental Association to get its members to go on strike for a day and not to do routine NHS treatment. Rather less prominently, it reported the following day that that attempt had been rejected by two to one. The dentists themselves decided that a much better approach would be to lobby Members of Parliament, and they will do so in July.
	The Yorkshire Post and, indeed, most people in Yorkshire would agree that we want value for money, that it is not a question of writing a blank cheque to dentists, as I am sure the hon. Member for Northavon would agree, and that those negotiations depend on a responsible attitude on both sides. Where that responsible attitude is not shown—I hope that that will not be countrywide, but there may be PCTs with particular problems—it is well worth reminding dentists that there is another model: a directly salaried model.
	Many dentists from overseas are coming in on that model and are directly salaried by the PCT. If that is what is takes to fill the gaps in NHS provision, that approach will receive a great deal of support among Labour Members. Dentists cannot have the NHS over a barrel. They have earned reasonable amounts of money from the NHS in previous years, and I think that they will be offered that in the future. Many of them are committed to the values of the NHS. However, if it is a question of taking on local dentists in certain areas and ensuring that NHS dental provision is maintained and expanded, that is what Ministers must do.
	Incidentally, we have an almost all-female team in the Department of Health, with a solitary male Minister. We have a number of strong female Ministers and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Rosie Winterton) will, if necessary, show a good deal of Yorkshire grit and determination in those negotiations and ensure that, by the next election, we have a very good story to tell on NHS dentistry.

Paul Rowen: I welcome that.
	I shall use an example from my constituency to demonstrate the problem with dentist numbers. I have received figures from my primary care trust showing that Rochdale needed 65 registered NHS dentists. We actually have 38, which is why the number of people registered with an NHS dentist has gone down. One of my constituents told me the other week that if people do not regularly attend for check ups, they get dropped off the list, which made my constituent less than happy. We need to change some working practices, such as drill and fill and the requirement for people to attend their dentist every three months if that is not necessary. I welcomed the comments made by the hon. Member for Mole Valley about that matter, of which he has a lot of experience.
	There is also a problem with conditions of service and the contracts under which people work. A report appeared recently in the local paper about three young Rochdale-born dentists who wished to establish a new surgery in the town. They could get a grant if they joined an existing practice, but they could not get a grant to open their own surgery. As a result, the three dentists moved 10 miles down the road and now provide a service in Radcliffe in Bury, rather than in Rochdale, which was where they wanted to work.
	Many dentists have moved out of the NHS because of the contracts under which they have worked. The Minister will face a big problem when trying to convince them that they will benefit both financially and in terms of their working practice by returning to the NHS. They are currently able to provide services at a cost that they would be unable to offer under the NHS. When she enters into the new contract discussions, she will need fresh thinking about what NHS dentists can offer, otherwise dentists who have got used to private practice and different working conditions will not move back to the NHS. We all want a viable NHS dentistry service, so we want the negotiations brought to fruition in a meaningful way, as the motion makes clear. I look forward to the Minister's statement next week and hope that she will think about what she can do to improve the situation in the north in general, and in Rochdale in particular.

Anne Snelgrove: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak. I have enjoyed the contributions made by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), who has sadly left the Chamber, because his speech was extremely eloquent and interesting.
	I am pleased to have the opportunity to describe to the House the successes of NHS dentistry in South Swindon and to inform my hon. Friend the Minister of the challenges that we still face. Happily, those challenges are by no means the mountains that they were in 1997 and I am sure that they will be resolved simply by her plans for NHS dentistry.
	In 1997, one could not get an NHS dentist for love nor money in Swindon, but the Labour Government's commitment to, and investment in, dentistry and especially their commitment to training more dentists, has dramatically changed the situation. Our financial investment would be stymied without an increase in the number of dentists, but of course it takes time to train people. It is easy to pass judgment when in opposition. If the training programme were circumvented, the Opposition would accuse the Government of endangering people's dental health. However, because the training programme takes time, Opposition Members complain that the Government are not acting fast enough. They are having their cake and eating it, and they might find that that leads to dental caries, if they are not careful.
	I am pleased to say that Wiltshire is involved in the Government's initiative to train overseas dentists. Earlier this year, the primary care trust, the community dental service and the personal dental service investigated training overseas dentists who already lived nearby, but could not practise because they did not have the IQE—the international qualifying exam. The training will allow them to gain clinical experience here in the UK while they study for the IQE. Individuals on the programme fund themselves, but all the partners involved are seeking innovative ways to fund the training—for example, by getting those involved to practise as dental nurses first.
	The Government's initiative to increase the number of places for undergraduates is also being supported in the south-west. Bristol dentistry school is, I am pleased to say, developing outreach teaching. The consultant dental manager at our PCT—a difficult phrase to say; I am glad that I still have my own teeth—met with Swindon medical academy and Bristol dentistry school earlier this year to discuss the possibility of outreach teaching at the medical academy. All the parties are keen, but, as always, resources are an issue. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will be able to reassure me that the enthusiasm of Swindon practitioners will be matched by the funding needed to realise their plans.
	Swindon has already benefited from dental access grants to the tune of £170,000. Six applications for funding were made, five of which were successful. The PCT has allocated £95,500 to the successful applicants, which translates into 10,000 new registrations. The money is enabling the five existing services to expand and modernise by providing new equipment and, crucially, four more dental chairs. The PCT is using the remaining money to set up two new dental chairs at one of Swindon's medical centres. By the end of 2005, therefore, Swindon will have a total of six new dental chairs.

Meg Hillier: It has been interesting to listen to today's debate. The hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) in particular made an interesting contribution. I will not focus on the ins and outs of what goes on in a dentist's room but on the wider issues in my Hackney constituency.
	First, I shall comment on the opening speech by the hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb). In another life, I was a young journalist in the world of housing. When the hon. Gentleman was first elected we were all excited, because he knew a great deal about his subject, and could make good, positive policy suggestions on improving the benefits system. When I sat down on the green Benches today, I thought that I would hear something interesting about dentistry, an issue that is important to my constituents and me, as well as to everyone in the Chamber. However, we were disappointed by the fluff and nonsense that we heard. There were no facts of any merit and no positive suggestions about what the Liberal Democrats would do. It was simply blatant electioneering, which is sad, because the issue is important for people in my constituency and the rest of Hackney.
	The problems with dentistry in Hackney are very different from the problems experienced elsewhere. We have plenty of NHS dentists, but we lack the patients. The startling fact is that less than a third of residents are registered with a dentist. Just over 61,000 people are registered in a population of 222,000, according to the figures produced by the primary care trust. Locally, the PCT is working with dentists. Thanks to the Government's policies, the priorities are to register more children and to promote preventive work. Eight dental practices have already signed up to the new personal dental services contract. The PCT, particularly its visionary and highly effective chief executive, Laura Sharpe, has made a good start in tackling the problems in partnership with the Government. It is easy for people to carp about things they think the Government have not done, so let us remind ourselves of what they have done. There has been an extra £250 million in this financial year alone—an increase of 19 per cent. in investment in dentistry—and a new dental contract has been introduced.
	I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister of State is willing to listen to points made in our debate, as there is not a simple answer to some of the problems in NHS dentistry. We do not live in the Liberal Democrat world of easy solutions but in the real world of government. I am delighted that under her stewardship we are working on long-term, sustainable solutions to problems. An extra £9 million has been provided by the Government to PCTs for training to help dentists to prepare for the introduction of the new ways of working from October this year.

Meg Hillier: As I said, in my constituency there is no shortage of dentists in the community, but I accept that we must consider the need for information about the availability of dentists. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Anne Snelgrove) said, dentists are available, but people are not always aware that they can register with them. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will focus on the positive side of the question rather than the negative and untrue points made by the Opposition.
	To return to Hackney issues, I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister and others would agree that the low registration rate is a serious issue for the health of Hackney residents across the board. Hackney has the second highest proportion of 0 to 4-year-olds in London—just over 8 per cent. It also has a high population turnover—about 20 per cent. a year. That is well illustrated by a primary school that I visited a few weeks ago in Hoxton in the heart of a large number of council estates in my constituency. In year 6 of that primary school, just under 20 per cent. of the pupils have been there since reception. That is an indication of the challenges facing the promotion of registration and access to dental health in populations such as mine in Hackney, South and Shoreditch.
	My hon. Friend outlined the Government's approach to increasing the registration of children, and I am delighted about that, but we only just over 14,000 children registered in Hackney and we need to increase that. I would be keen to work with her and the primary care trust to ensure that boost. I am delighted that the primary care trust has taken the matter up with such vigour, but it is a challenge nevertheless.
	Personally, I support fluoridation. In a previous existence, when I was a member of another Assembly, we discovered that, in London, it is particularly difficult to achieve because of the number of water companies and their geographical spread and cover, which makes it difficult under the new legislation to get an agreement to provide fluoridation across London. That leaves many of London's young people vulnerable to decay, especially in parts of east London, including Hackney, where literacy is not so high, population turnover is high and we have a number of migrant communities.

Meg Hillier: The Government's excellent Sure Start programme could embrace education in that regard, as well as the many other excellent things that it delivers in my constituency and elsewhere. Parents have an important role, as do nurseries and schools. We cannot provide the necessary education top-down from Government and I would not suggest that. There needs to be an awareness that dental health in children is a good indicator of general health and well-being. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful intervention.
	The Labour Government are making a difference in a positive way. Before I finish, I wish to pick up on a point made from the Opposition Benches. The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) expressed concern about foreign-born dentists. It is a shame that the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) has already left. I am delighted to have foreign-born dentists working in London and in my constituency, and I rather shocked that a London Member should raise that as an issue of concern. Clearly, we also need to secure places at home to train dentists, wherever they were born, which the Government are doing.
	I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will address some of the points that I have raised, and that we can look forward to a greater emphasis on dental health care, for children particularly, in east London.

Martin Horwood: I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting that additional complication. In Cheltenham, apart from charge-exempt adults who qualify for that single dental practice, there are no NHS dental practices that will accept adult patients at all.

Andrew Turner: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that, in questions on the subject on 14 June, my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Milton Keynes (Mr. Lancaster) referred to children being accepted on NHS lists only on condition that their parents agreed to go private with the same dentist? Has he had that experience in Cheltenham?

Richard Younger-Ross: Like the hon. Member for South Swindon (Anne Snelgrove), I too had an abscess, two weeks earlier in the election campaign. My dentist actually got out of bed on a Sunday morning and treated me, so that I could continue to work. My agent had an abscess just after the election, however, and was told that she would have to wait two weeks for treatment on the NHS. She ended up having to go private because no relief was available through the national health service.

Julia Goldsworthy: Fortunately, I have not had an abscess in the past few months.
	The Government's amendment to the motion states that there has been extra investment and that the head count of dentists has increased. I would be interested to know how those dentists are splitting their time between NHS and private work, and what the full-time equivalent is of NHS dentistry provision. I am concerned that there appear to be mismatches between the Government's figures and people's real experiences on the ground, such as those highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Leech).
	My hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) has helpfully passed on to me a written answer to a parliamentary question, which gives a very healthy head count of dentists in North Yorkshire. In contrast, the reality that my hon. Friend has experienced on the ground is completely different. He has been contacted by a practice in Ripon that has had to take 1,000 registered patients off its books because the PCT cannot provide the additional funding that it needs to recruit another dentist. So the Government's figures might appear warm and encouraging on paper, but they bear no relation to people's experiences on the ground.
	I am worried about the many unknown factors that need to be investigated before these problems can properly be addressed. At present, the problems are not properly understood. For example, we do not yet know when all the dentists will be switching over to the personal dental services contracts, as negotiations between the British Dental Association have broken down once before. Furthermore, it is not yet clear whether the switch over to the new contracts will result in improved capacity for dental services, or whether the dentists who have already moved over to the PDS contracts have increased their ratios of NHS patients and treatments. Surely it will be vital to know whether the new contracts will help to address the problems that I have outlined.
	Fears have also been expressed by the National Audit Office that there will be a reduction in NHS services as a result of the introduction of the new contracts, similar to that of the early 1990s. A further unknown factor relates to the recruitment of overseas dentists. While they are indeed filling a cavity in dental provision, we do not know how well PCTs are absorbing the cost of recruiting and inducting them. With so many PCTs already in deficit, this issue needs to be investigated further.
	It is great news that the Government are planning to increase the number of new dentists by increasing the number of students being trained, but how will those extra places be filled when many dental schools are already in financial deficit and having huge problems recruiting academic dental staff?

Julia Goldsworthy: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman will be reassured by the information that I am about to give him. The point that I am making is that the help that the NHS is trying to give is based on factors that may not reflect reality. The NHS website states that none of the 18 practices registered in Cheadle is accepting new NHS patients, yet a ring-around revealed that two of them actually are. The concern is that the facts are not right. How many patients looking to register with a dentist will go to the trouble of ringing dozens of practices to see whether, on the off chance, the facts might not be right? That needs to be addressed.
	Concerns about access have also been illustrated by Members, such as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy), who is lobbying for a new dental school in Plymouth, which I wholly support, and that reflects a need to get as many dentists as possible into the area because registrations are currently so low. Urgent action is required to rebuild NHS dentistry so that more people know what access they might have to services, as the hon. Member for South Swindon (Anne Snelgrove) pointed out, and so that they can access the services that they need. Will the Minister promise to investigate further how to fill in the current gaps in knowledge so that real and immediate progress can be made?

Julia Goldsworthy: Of course I would welcome that, if it makes a positive impact on the serious problems that I hope that the hon. Lady will concede that we currently have.
	I also want to draw the Minister's attention to the contents of the Liberal Democrat manifesto for the previous election, which called for closer work with the dental profession to ensure that it is on board with reforms that will deliver more dentists working for the NHS.

Julia Goldsworthy: Certainly. As the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) pointed out, the Government and dentists need to work together to resolve such issues.
	The drill-and-fill payment system, which has caused so many problems, should be scrapped as soon as possible, and free dental check-ups should be introduced to help promote good dental health, as they will pick up more than just cavities.

Steve Webb: Let me ask the Minister a serious question about accountability. He mentioned the devolution of commissioning to PCTs. On a number of occasions during the debate when we criticised Government action the reply was "It's the PCTs". We do not elect the PCTs; we elect Ministers. Where will the democratic accountability in dentistry be when commissioning is decentralised?

Liam Byrne: We need only remind ourselves of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Anne Snelgrove) to understand the impact that can be made by working in partnership with PCTs. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) made a similar point.
	The hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) made an extremely well-informed speech, characterised by an enduring commitment to the principles of NHS dentistry. He was right to emphasise the importance of fluoridation: areas with fluoridated water have experienced declines of around 15 per cent. in tooth decay among children. He also emphasised the importance of the new contract, recognising the opportunity that it represents. I hope that during the consultation and the affirmative-resolution procedure in both Houses, he will do his best to make his views known.
	The hon. Members for Rochdale (Paul Rowen) and for Cheltenham (Mr. Horwood) described some of the access problems in their constituencies. I think that their speeches implied the same conclusion that the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Leech) appeared to reach. I think that they were all arguing in favour of the new contractual arrangements that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will announce next week. I take issue only with the allegation by the hon. Gentleman that the Government had done nothing to address the inheritance of 1997. An extra £250 million is not an empty promise; the recruitment of 1,000 extra dentists is not an empty promise; a 20 per cent. increase in the number of training places is not an empty promise. All those things make a difference, not just in the country generally but in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. For a start, he will have an extra £144,000 in access money.

Liam Byrne: The hon. Gentleman must wait for the new arrangements that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will announce next week.
	Members on both sides of the House spoke of the differences made to access throughout the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) explained how our reforms would benefit urban areas. I thank her for her recognition of the record investment in the NHS and NHS dentistry. I join her in celebrating the availability of dentists in Hackney. She too mentioned the important issue of fluoridation, to which I will alert my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), the Under-Secretary of State for Health.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) has not been to Cheadle for some reason, but I welcome his endorsement of our strategy. As he said, his constituency is benefiting from the changes. His local PCT has eight new recruits, and registration has increased by more than 8,000. That is a good example of the difference that can be made—not least in the widening of access—by transferring commissioning to PCTs, which are now in control of £1.6 billion. He concluded with some sage advice on contract consultations in the months to come, which will doubtless be of great benefit to my hon. Friend the Minister of State. My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr. Reed) added to those thoughts with a helpful contribution of his own.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton also congratulated the Government on the progress that has been made. I thank her for that, and in turn congratulate her on engaging with her local PCT. I am sure that its hitting its targets is not unrelated to the strong interest that she takes in local matters. She underlined the strength of her city's claim to be host to a new dental school; I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will have listened very carefully to what she had to say. What a welcome change to be debating where to open dental schools, rather than mourning their closure.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon highlighted the sharp contrast in her constituency between the situation now and before 1997. Some of the innovation that she highlighted was especially useful. Her constituency has indeed benefited considerably. Her PCT has a growth in registrations of 4,500 coming its way. Her strategic health authority has nearly £2 million extra in capital and revenue resources, as well as an access centre. I must congratulate her on taking a close interest in dental matters in her constituency—so close that she was drawn into a little personal research in what sounded like the most pressing of circumstances. She highlighted the need to publicise the new dentistry services that are available, and I can only agree. She also raised a specific case, on which I shall write to her.
	I want to conclude my survey of this afternoon's contributions with that of the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison), who opened with some excellent jokes and then proceeded to tell some that were slightly less amusing. I was especially intrigued by his idea that, on the basis of evidence, dental schools will close. I was not sure which evidence he meant. Was it the number of registrations falling by 2.1 million, or treatments falling by 600,000? He did not say. He did, however, underline the need for an NHS commitment to dentistry, with which I can only concur.
	The hon. Gentleman also underlined the importance of a personal touch, but he said that he was unsure about our commitment to delivering it. Well, the best way to guarantee it is by recruiting more dentists, not by encouraging them to drift away. The best way to guarantee it is by training new dentists for the future, not by closing down dental schools. He emphasised the importance of registration, which intrigued me slightly. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), who is not in his place, has said that the Conservatives' own plans do not guarantee patients' ability to register, even in cases where they have secured insurance.
	In conclusion, I celebrate the House's resolve time and again to address itself to the vital issue of the nation's oral health. This is our third debate on this issue in the past 12 months. Once again, we have spent an afternoon counting the cost of clearing up the Conservatives' legacy. Once again, we have heard of the damage done by their calamitous contract of 1990. Once again, we have heard of the price paid for their decision to close down dental schools. And once again, we have heard from the Liberal Democrats a solution—

Linda Gilroy: A little earlier, I mentioned that one issue that the Conservatives perhaps have difficulty in getting their heads round is that in 1997 we inherited a situation in which some 42p in every new pound of taxation was being spent on the cost of economic failure, unemployment and the national debt, which had got out of control. I did not mention that that figure has now dropped to some 11p in the pound, which means that we have the money to invest in a sustainable way. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a key point, and that it should give us confidence in future?

Elliot Morley: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	"welcomes the UK's global leadership on climate change and in particular the Prime Minister's decision to make climate change one of the top two priorities for the G8 Presidency and a priority for the EU Presidency; recognises that UK initiatives in 2005 have already made important contributions to the international debate on future climate change policy, in particular the scientific conference on stabilisation in February 2005 and the Energy and Environment Ministerial Roundtable in March 2005; looks forward to the Gleneagles Summit and provides its full support to the Prime Minister's continuing efforts to secure a successful outcome; commends the UK's plans to continue to strive for further international action following Gleneagles through both the G8 and EU; further commends the Labour Party for being the only party to commit in its manifesto to a national goal to reduce emissions by 20 per cent. by 2010; celebrates the UK's achievement in already reducing emissions to 13.4 per cent. between the base year and 2003, beyond that required by the Kyoto Protocol; further welcomes the introduction of policies such as the climate change levy and renewables obligation that have been so important in achieving this; and looks forward to the publication of the climate change programme later this year which will set out further policies to deliver the goal of a 20 per cent. reduction in emissions by 2010."
	I welcome the opportunity for this debate and I hope there will be further opportunities in the not-too-distant future to discuss sustainability and climate change. If it is possible for the Government to facilitate such discussion, I am sure we will.
	I begin by correcting the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), who gets very enthusiastic about his argument. On the UK Government's commitment to overseas aid and the £10 million to assist developing countries with mitigation of climate change and adaptation, we are committed to that money, but the details of the scheme and how the money will be spent have not yet been satisfactorily resolved. We are confident that they will be resolved and that the money will be released. It is allocated and the commitment stands.
	As a country we contribute more than we are obliged to contribute to the global environment fund, which is important for tackling climate change globally. We are one of the biggest contributors. The United Nations environment programme is a voluntary fund. It is not an indicative scale, though many of us feel that it should be. We are the largest single contributor to that fund. Let us be clear about our commitment to dealing with climate change internationally.
	That does not take into account the assistance that we give through science. The Hadley centre has developed a regional software programme for predicting climatic change called PRECIS, which can be applied to subcontinents. I have had the opportunity to talk to international scientists from India and Brazil, for example, who are using that software, supported by UK scientists, to try and understand the implications of climatic change on subcontinents such as India. That is an important contribution from the UK and our assistance to developing countries in that way is much appreciated internationally.

Elliot Morley: There is more enthusiasm than factual accuracy in the comment from the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart). It is ludicrous to suggest that the UK is not recognised internationally as one of the countries giving the strongest lead on climatic change. Everywhere I go—as a DEFRA Minister, I attend many conferences and meet many people from all over the world—the importance of the lead that the UK has given is constantly raised and admiration is expressed for our Prime Minister's work and the steps that we have taken.
	I shall outline those steps to the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart)—I am sure that he will enjoy that—during the debate. Energy underpins our approach to climatic change. The energy White Paper, which sets out our energy policies for the longer term, is held up as a model internationally for what countries should do when defining a long-term energy strategy. I shall give a few examples of what we have done in the UK shortly.
	If the hon. Gentleman wants to discuss a lead, perhaps he will tell me what other G8 country is on target to meet its Kyoto commitments, let alone to have reached it. He is welcome to intervene if he knows the answer. Apart from the UK and Sweden, what other European country is on track to achieve its Kyoto target?

Elliot Morley: I will make some progress, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.
	In 2000, the Government introduced the UK climate change programme, which focused on policies and measures to achieve our Kyoto target. The Kyoto target is important, and we are one of the very few industrial countries that are well on track to meet it, but we want to do more. We therefore set ourselves our own domestic target of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent., as the hon. Member for Lewes rightly stated. We also want to do more by reducing CO 2 emissions by 60 per cent. by about 2050.
	I heard what the hon. Member for Lewes said about his party's manifesto. He will know that, before the election, the non-governmental organisations asked for four key commitments from all the parties. We made all those commitments and put them in our manifesto; we were the only party to do so. One of those commitments was that we would recognise the fact that, if we did not take further action, we would not reach our target in 2010. We conceded that. We also reaffirmed our commitment to reaching the target of a 20 per cent. reduction by 2010, and that commitment remains. I shall explain how we intend to achieve that.
	We accept that, if we take no action from now, we will not achieve a 20 per cent. reduction. However, that is not the position that we are going to take. We have put in place the climate change review, which will come out in November. It is looking at all methods and options that can be used to achieve our target. Without the measures introduced in the climate change programme in 2000, involving energy efficiency, domestic targets, changes in company car taxation, the climate change levy and the UK carbon trading scheme—the first national scheme of its kind in the world—we would probably now be producing about 15 per cent. more than the 1990 level of greenhouse gas emissions, rather than producing about 14 per cent. below that level, as we were in 2003. That is the kind of impact that our domestic measures have had. There are, however, still pressures that have resulted in a rise in CO 2 , and I shall address those issues in a moment.

Elliot Morley: I should like to make some progress. Perhaps the hon. Lady could intervene later.
	We have to consider what we can do to achieve our domestic goals, and that work is under way. We have no illusions about the challenge that we face. We have deliberately set ourselves ambitious targets because we want to demonstrate that we are serious about what we are doing in our own country to reduce greenhouse gasses. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Lewes that, if we are to give global leadership—as we are doing—we must demonstrate our commitment in our own country. We are absolutely committed to doing that. We cannot tackle climate change unilaterally. We must give a clear lead in our own country and face our own responsibilities, but we must also take action in conjunction with our international partners. That means being successful in our own domestic programmes.
	The Prime Minister has made tackling climate change a central theme in the UK's G8 presidency this year, as the hon. Member for Lewes rightly pointed out. The Government's primary objective is to raise the profile of climate change as a matter that deserves the attention of the Heads of Government in the G8 and beyond, so as to promote international consensus on the need for further action to control emissions. It is fair to say that some people still need to be convinced of the need for further action, although I am glad to say that their number is declining. Nevertheless, we need to make that case.
	We have set ourselves some more detailed, and no less ambitious, objectives. First, it is important that, at the Gleneagles conference, we come to a better understanding of the science involved, which means addressing some of the doubts that have been raised. We very much welcomed the statement from the national scientific bodies of all G8 countries, including the American Academy of Sciences, which was important.
	Secondly, we want to ensure that the G8 agrees to a package of practical measures focused on technologies with significantly lower greenhouse gas emissions than traditional technologies—such as clean fuels and the hydrogen economy, as has been pointed out—on which a great deal of work is taking place within the G8 and which requires co-operation. There is also a need for technology transfer to emerging economies and developing countries.
	Thirdly, we need to work in partnership with the major emerging economies to reach a new consensus on how to deal with the future challenge. That is why I am pleased that China, Brazil, South Africa, Mexico and India have deliberately been involved in the G8 process, as we must bring those major economies on side. Incidentally, China emits more greenhouse gases than the whole European Union put together, and is now the world's second biggest emitter. I was pleased at the positive response from the Chinese when we discussed those issues in the environment and energy round table meeting as part of our G8 process, which 20 Ministers from around the world attended, including Chinese and Indian Ministers, which was useful.
	I should emphasise that the Gleneagles aspect is but one part of our G8 process. The science conference, which we hosted at the Hadley centre in February, was successful in attracting the world's leading scientists. Its outcome suggested that the risks identified with climate change are probably more serious than was previously thought, which makes the need for action even more important. The statement on 7 June from all the science academies backs that up. The science academies also called on G8 nations to
	"identify cost-effective steps that can be taken now to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions".
	That supports our objectives under the UK's presidency.
	We also want to consider practical measures on technology, and specific proposals are being prepared in collaboration with our G8 partners on cleaning up fossil fuels and improving energy performance. The G8 has already agreed, under the Evian action plan on science and technology for sustainable development, to accelerate the research, development and diffusion of energy technologies, and we hope that the G8 can build on that by agreeing to turn what is currently political agreement into real action.

Elliot Morley: That is a good point. Moreover, with prices at those levels, some technologies and developments that were not viable when the price was $30 a barrel are viable now, when the price is unlikely to return to the lower levels of the past. There are many reasons for seeking non-fossil fuel alternatives, but now there is that additional incentive.
	We expect economic development to continue in the developing countries, which means an increase in greenhouse gases. We in the G8 have a role in helping emerging economies to move towards a low-carbon future. That means thinking about clean coal technology, energy efficiency, renewable energy and what we can provide in terms of capacity-building, technical assistance and extra finance. We have been keen to involve the developing countries and key emerging economies in discussing the possibilities.
	As well as those emerging economies—Brazil, Mexico and South Africa—we should consider the vulnerable developing countries. We must help them respond to the challenges of climate variability and climate change in the context of our overseas development budgets and the aid that we provide, not least in the context of the UN millennium goals. We are off track with those, particularly in relation to water and sanitation, and the impact of climate change does not help.
	We must ensure that developing countries have adequate regional and national data, and the capacity to interpret it. That will involve our role in engaging with the United States. I accept that, as has been said, the United States—as the biggest single emitter—needs to do more, but many states, cities and companies want to do more than the current Government allow, and we are engaging with them as well. I attended a meeting of the climate group in Canada, where a number of American states were represented, including California. It is necessary to move faster and further with the coalition of the willing, and we intend to do that. In the G8, however, we must look for common commitment to energy security, local air quality and efficiency savings, as well as to tackling climate change. We expect a robust debate on climate change with our G8 partners at Gleneagles.
	The hon. Member for Lewes loves to read what is written in newspapers, but he should reserve his judgment until the final outcome of the G8. A great deal of negotiation is going on, and it will continue to the final minute of the G8 meeting.
	The Prime Minister is looking for a meaningful outcome. He did not have to do that; he could have gone for the traditional, well-meaning statement that comes out of the G8. Following such a statement, everyone slaps each other on the back, returns to their respective countries and nothing happens. The Prime Minister wants more than that, but of course, there is a risk involved. We might not be able to persuade people to go as far and as fast as we would like, and we have to accept that. But I ask the hon. Member for Lewes and the House, is it better to go for the soft option or to take a risk, even though there is the possibility of failure? I think that we should go as far and as fast as the agreement that we get will allow us.

John Hemming: Will the Minister explain what might happen at the G8 in respect of international flights? My understanding is that Kyoto ignores international flights. The UK emits perhaps 1 million tonnes of carbon a year that is domestic and 8 million tonnes that is international. Is it possible at Montreal, in the climate change review or at the G8 summit to bring international flights into the calculations?

Elliot Morley: The G8 is not the forum for that, because international agreement is required. The appropriate forum would be the United Nations framework convention on climate change. I believe that we should take action on global aviation and we have raised the issue. In all honesty, I would have to say that, at the moment, a majority of the international community is against taking global action. I greatly regret that, but that is where we are. That does not mean, however, that we cannot take action on aviation in the EU. Indeed, as mentioned in the debate, one of our objectives for the UK presidency is to bring forward proposals on how best to include EU aviation within the EU carbon trading scheme. I am optimistic that we will be able to do that, but we will not be able to complete the negotiation process under our presidency, because the time scale is longer than six months. We can get it on the table, start the process and build support for our approach, which is very important.
	I conclude by returning to the point that Gleneagles, the G8 presidency and the process are all important, but that Gleneagles is but one part of the process. There are some key new summits scheduled for the autumn—the EU-India summit, the EU-China summit and the EU-Russia summit, for which the UK will be in the chair as president. We have already discussed with those countries, in connection with the ministerial round table discussions, the issue of climatic change and we expect it to be a feature of those summits. That will represent an important step forward.
	On 5 and 6 October, we will host an international business conference on climatic change. The purpose is again to stress the point that taking action on climatic change is not necessarily bad for the economy and that there can be advantages in it. Furthermore, on 10 and 11 November we will host a joint EU-G8 conference on environmentally friendly vehicles, which will be held in Birmingham. Those are all steps towards building consensus, raising the issues, getting support internationally and moving forward to the crucial next COP in Montreal of the United Nations framework convention on climate change. That is where we have to aim to achieve global agreement. At Montreal, we will press for the conference to agree to start negotiations on the framework beyond 2012, which we hope will produce a regime capable of tackling this most pressing challenge.
	I have spelled out the Government's proposals in some detail, and what we are doing both nationally and globally. I have also set out what we have done to tackle climate change, and what we are doing for the future review. I do not believe that any other major industrial nation has a record that can rival the UK's.

Oliver Letwin: I begin with an observation about the character of the debate that the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) may find surprising. More than is the case with any other matter, we are all in this together. There is not a scintilla of difference between the three main parties—and I suspect that the same is true for the minority parties, too—about our objectives.
	For that reason, we all ought to make a solemn and binding agreement that we will not introduce into the debate any unnecessary crypto-partisanship. On the whole, I absolve the two main speakers, and I do not propose to make remarks about the contents of the Liberal Democrat election manifesto. That party has been seriously committed to trying to do something about climate change for as long as I can remember. That is clearly the Liberal Democrat position, and it is also the Government's, as the Minister has been committed to the same goal, also for as long as I can remember.
	Of course, there are shades of opinion and commitment within the Government, as there are in the Conservative party. The Minister is aided and abetted by quite a powerful Minister—the Prime Minister—and we should do the Government the credit of recognising that they aim to do the right thing.
	But so is the Conservative party, and that has been the case for a very long time. Indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition persuaded the US to join the framework convention by means of a piece of shuttle diplomacy that is one of the most important elements in the evolution of this debate. Therefore, this is not one of those issues that divide the three main parties. However, I happen to agree with the motion, and I shall ask Opposition Members to vote with the Liberal Democrats this evening.
	The real problem is not about intention, but delivery. It has two dimensions, both of which the hon. Member for Lewes explained clearly. I agree with his observations about one of those dimensions, but my slant on the other is rather different.
	I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the Government's delivery on the domestic agenda. The Minister made a typically mellifluous, comprehensive and knowledgeable contribution, in which he sketched many of the steps that the Government have taken. Although the Government have taken a great many such steps, various hon. Members pointed out that they have not proved sufficient to achieve a persistent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.
	Indeed, I stood at this Dispatch Box recently and said that there had been a serendipitous fall in the nitrous oxide emitted as a result of the use of adipic acid in nylon production, and that farmers had done very well in reducing methane emissions and the use of nitrous oxide in fertilisers. Without those factors, the Government would not merely be in danger of not meeting their Kyoto targets but, as the hon. Member for Lewes correctly pointed out, but nowhere near fulfilling them. There is therefore an underlying problem.
	Leaving aside the fact that Ministers must always present a good front, I am sure that this Minister is perfectly aware of the difficulties facing the Government in meeting the Kyoto objectives. That is not unique to this Administration: all British Governments face the same problems, as this is a very difficult matter. The nation—and Government Departments—must be led to adopt policies that consciously reduce national income. We have to admit to ourselves that a cost is involved. Most of the things that the Government—like most Governments before them—wish to do are aimed at increasing national income. Therefore, having a set of policies that are consciously designed to reduce national income—in some respects—is a difficult proposition and it is no surprise that the Government have encountered some difficulties. However, it is also unhelpful if Ministers pretend to themselves, perhaps through fear of political partisanship from the Opposition, that they can continue to persuade the public that we are going to make progress on—not present policy, because I accept the Minister's point that the review is imminent—what is likely to be policy.
	All parties will have to admit that, not only for the next four or five years but for the next 40 or 50 years, the nation will need a framework for the approach to the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions and thus the prevention of rapid global warming, or at least our contribution to it, that is parallel to the process that the Chancellor successfully achieved through the transfer of monetary policy to the Bank of England and the establishment of fiscal rules. The Chancellor created an external discipline. It is not perfect and, in previous roles, I have proposed amendments to it, but it has been on the whole successful in creating fiscal discipline that would otherwise be lacking. We do not, as yet, have an analogous external discipline on the behaviour of this and future Governments in relation to climate change. Until we have such a framework, I am convinced that no Government—not this one nor, as I hope, a Conservative Government in due course—will be able to resist the pressure from many quarters to diminish the speed with which we address the problem, because of the economic costs. I hope that we will reach the point when we agree about that.

Oliver Letwin: To a degree, the hon. Lady is right. Parts of the wide portfolio of measures that need to be taken to get anywhere near the 60 per cent. target by 2050 have present value advantages and, almost certainly, long-term economic gain attached to them. A classic example is home insulation with fibreglass. There is no doubt that, for most householders, that is already an economic proposition. Part of my case against the Government is not that they have not sought to promote such insulation but that they have not found an effective means of doing so. Most of our countrymen do not know how they can insulate their lofts, do not know what the economics look like and therefore do not recognise or realise that economic advantage.
	We should not delude ourselves. The number of cases in which early economic gains would be made as well as climate change gains is limited. In many other cases, there would be social and economic costs, many of which would last for a long time as well as having a short-term impact. If we were to run the electricity supply industry as cheaply as possible, it would persistently fail to contribute to climate change goals. There is a contrast between what the economics of the situation would dictate and the dictates of climate change. Of course, those relationships alter from time to time, sometimes adversely and sometimes favourably. At the moment, gas prices are rising and coal prices are falling, and that has an adverse effect on a climate change strategy. At other times, technology and other changes will have a different effect.
	My point is that we must not delude ourselves. If we are serious about the issue, as opposed to merely playing with it, we need a range of measures over the next 50 years that will have economic costs. We should not think that we can get away without such costs and we have to recognise that, therefore, in a democracy considerable pressure will be felt against such measures. There will also be social costs, such as people having to live next to things that they may not want to live next to, or people having to see things in the countryside that they might not want to see. Those costs also have to be overcome. We therefore need a clear-minded, effective external framework that constrains democratic politics where there is a consensus, in order that we can make real progress over a sustained period.

Oliver Letwin: As the hon. Gentleman has offered a serious question I am going to make an admission. By the sound of it, when that letter was sent I was shadow Chancellor, not shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and, until he mentioned it an hour ago, I had not the slightest knowledge of its existence. I shall try to trace it, but let me offer him something that it is within my power to offer him: wholehearted consent to discussions with him and with the Minister or the Secretary of State about these matters, in an effort to discover the extent to which we can agree on methods, as we are already agreed on goals.
	Let me turn to the main point that the Liberals are making in their motion, and with which I also agree. This is not in the spirit of criticism of the Government but in the spirit of offering a constructive way forward. [Laughter.] That is not an ironic remark. I mean that genuinely. The spokesman for the Liberals said, and I understand his motivation in saying it, that the Prime Minister was right to go into the G8 saying that his two priorities were global poverty and climate change. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, as an objective assessment of the problems facing the world, the Prime Minister was right. Given that we are reasonably prosperous and reasonably at peace, those are the two great issues facing the world that probably most need tackling. I am not so convinced that the Prime Minister was necessarily wise to include climate change if he could not achieve more than it currently looks—I take the Minister's point that we do not yet know the outcome—as if he may emerge with. I want to explain why, and then I want to make a proposal about what the Minister and the Secretary of State might recommend to the Prime Minister that he might entertain as a possible way out of the impasse as he participates in the negotiations in the next few days.
	I accept that the Minister is right to describe the international negotiations as a long-running process that will run through to the Montreal meeting and beyond. Indeed, it dates back many years to the formation of the original framework convention. I agree that that process exists, but the business of those negotiations is best described, roughly speaking, by the analogy of a large boulder being pushed up a steep hill. It needs a constant effort to go up.

Oliver Letwin: It is not quite like everything, because if we stop moving forward with some cases of public policy, we just stay stationary. This process is not like that. If the boulder if not being pushed up, it will roll down. In fact, if the G8 summit is seen as a reverse, it will be a reverse. As I found when I was negotiating the Intelsat agreement, there is a terrible tendency in international negotiations for the parties to decide that, if the thing is too difficult, they will turn their attention elsewhere. There is a real risk that, by elevating climate change as a major component of the G8 negotiations, the Prime Minister will have created the basis for a negative impact from the G8 summit that might not have occurred if he had not originally so elevated it.
	The Minister was engaged in a subtle and rather elegant manoeuvre to persuade us that, after all, the G8 summit was no more than a small part. That may be a useful part of the rhetoric of avoiding the problem, but I fear that there is great expectation not just in the UK press, but in the world's media, and if the G8 summit does not produce a noticeable step forward, it will be difficult, even with the massive presentational skills of the Prime Minister and the Government, to persuade the media not to regard it as a significant setback. Certainly, the Minister and the Liberal spokesman will be as aware as I am from meeting the non-governmental organisations that there is widespread scepticism and concern among the NGO community, which will be reflected into the media.
	How then can the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, even at this late stage, hope to make some significant progress from the G8 summit? In answering that question we must admit, of course, that it is not the case the US will sign up suddenly or, indeed, at any time to the current Kyoto agreement. Nor is it the case—I very much take this point—that the US will sign up until and unless it believes that China, India and probably Brazil will also come into the fold.
	I accept therefore that this is a jigsaw puzzle and it is a mighty difficult jigsaw puzzle to get right. It is difficult to find the pieces that lock together in the right way. I also accept that that will not occur at the G8 meeting. That need not be fatal if—this is what the Prime Minister ought to try to negotiate—what comes from the G8 summit is not just, for example, a commitment to a nugatory investment in certain kinds of technology or warm words, but rather a definitive process, with a timetable attached, so that people can see that—between the G8 summit and what happens at Montreal and, indeed, beyond—the US, together with China and India, has been brought into a process that stands the chance of creating a new agreement within the framework convention. In principle, that seems an achievable goal.
	I am not so close to the negotiations as the Minister—still less, obviously, than the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State—but I have the sense that, if the ambition is made sufficiently restricted, it will be achievable to gain progress, and be seen to gain it, which would mean that the boulder was pushed up the hill, even if only by an inch or two, rather than rolling back down.

Oliver Letwin: There will have inevitably have to be a role not just for more conspicuous national mechanics to constrain democratic Governments into behaving in the long-term interest of their nations but more conspicuous international mechanics for constraining those Governments who do not have sufficient domestic mechanics to achieve that goal. Whether it is the commission that my hon. Friend refers to or another is a matter that must be negotiated and considered, but I am clear that there needs to be a multilateral framework and a unilateral framework within each country. That means that, together, progress is regularly and sustainably made.
	In effect, we are talking about a curve and it is not the curve itself but the area under it that matters. People sometimes talk as though CO 2 emissions were a matter of how much is being emitted 50 years from now, but it is not. It is a matter of how much is emitted between now and 50 years from now, and it is important that the area under the curve is right over that period. That will certainly not be achieved unless there is international monitoring of some kind and a seriously enforceable series of mechanisms.
	I wish to make a final point. There is no doubt that there are sceptics about climate change. The Liberal spokesman referred to the fact that the governor of California recently said that the debate is over. Many people regard it as a test of sanity, mainstream political allegiance or whatever that people sign up to the science. The Minister referred to the fact that the Prime Minister and Secretary of State have been keen to promote more agreement on the science, and I have no objection to that. But I think there is a severe danger that most of us—I include myself—who have no scientific expertise will try to persuade ourselves that what really matters is whether we buy into the science. It does not matter two hoots whether I buy into the science. I know nothing about the matter, so my adherence to it is of no more interest than whether my 12-year-old son believes that two and two equal four. They do equal four and if he does not know that fact his education is in trouble, but it tells us nothing about the truth or otherwise of the matter, and my adherence or otherwise to the science is equally irrelevant to the truth of that science.
	Moreover, there are plenty of examples in history of establishment views about science proving in the long run to be wholly fallacious. There are cases in which 99 per cent. of all the then scientists took a view and turned out to be wrong. I do not base my absolute belief that we must take the problem seriously, to the extent of actually doing something about it, on an adherence to a view of the science, but on a kind of Pascalian wager. It seems clear to me that if the great bulk of the scientific community who believe that a terrible problem is about to inflict us turn out to be wrong and— notwithstanding the costs that I was debating with the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman)—we have invested in a number of harmless and, in many cases, for other reasons, positively useful devices, we shall have wasted a little of our national income. To take her point, even then not all of it would be a waste in economic terms. We could probably organise things so that, in the meanwhile, the place is a little nicer to live in as a result. I do not think that anybody in the world would suffer dramatically from that. If, on the contrary, we do not take the problem seriously—even if we go around saying that we believe in it—and we do not actually do anything about it, and what the great bulk of scientists is telling us is about to occur begins to occur, the costs, in social and economic disruption will be immense. That is a risk not worth taking.
	We no longer need to debate the science, not because scientific debate among scientists is ever over and not because we who are not scientists know the truth, but because we would have to be lunatic not to try to do that which has a relatively slight cost if done early and face the possible consequence of a disaster that would have an enormous cost later. I hope that in my party, and more generally across the nation, we quit that debate and get on with the business, in which we have been engaging—usually constructively—this evening, of trying to work out how we make things happen across the globe and in this country. In that endeavour, I hope we can join.

Mark Lazarowicz: I shall take note of your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although many issues have been raised in the debate and I want to comment on some of them.
	The right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), at the beginning of his thoughtful speech, called on Members not to engage in crypto-partisan comments. I am not quite sure what those are, but I have observed that when people ask other Members not to engage in partisan debate it tends to mean that their own arguments are rather weak and that they do not want too much focus on them.
	I shall take the right hon. Gentleman's advice in the spirit in which it was given, although I intend to begin with a few comments that may be seen as partisan, because it is important to examine some of the Liberal Democrat policies and their record on this matter; it is after all a Liberal Democrat day. In tackling climate change, it is important that the rhetoric of politicians is matched by their actions and I have to say that, on too many occasions, Liberal Democrat rhetoric is not matched by action. That needs to be emphasised. The headline policies are good, but the specifics on how they are to be implemented are not so good. Indeed, there are occasions when it would appear that Liberal Democrats would happily run a mile if any of their environmental policies might run the slightest risk of scaring voters.
	Earlier, there was a short exchange of views about national road-user charging and the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) confirmed that his party supports such a scheme. Earlier today, I noticed that my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett), bravely confirmed in the Scottish Liberal Democrats manifesto for the recent election that it was Liberal Democrat policy to
	"scrap petrol duties and car tax altogether replacing them with a national system of road user charging based on location, congestion and pollution."
	I commend him on his bravery in saying that, especially because he represents Edinburgh, which is an urban area with plenty of congestion, so the policy would probably cost those of his constituents who drive into the centre of Edinburgh perhaps £100 a week in road user charges.
	I mention road user charging because the Liberal Democrats support a national road user charging scheme, but when we had a debate and referendum in Edinburgh earlier this year on the introduction of a congestion charging scheme in the city, which was recommended by an independent report and supported by most independent transport exports, the campaign against the scheme was led by the Liberal Democrats in Edinburgh. Of course, they were not against congestion charging per se—they were in favour of it in principle—but they said that that particular scheme was not quite right and had not come forward at the right time. The Liberal Democrats had the perfect opportunity to promote their green credentials, but when it came to actual nitty-gritty politics, their policy had the opposite effect on the environment to the headline policies that they proclaim in debates such as this.

Mark Lazarowicz: My comments are not motivated in that way. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that I have taken this line of argument on many occasions in the past few months. I am sorry if he feels that I am engaged in a non-stop attack on the Liberal Democrats, because there is more to come before I move on to the wider political agenda.
	I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Lewes, whose record demonstrates some principle in these matters. Like me, he recognises that we cannot simply wait until national road user charging is introduced, as though it will be the panacea for all our transport problems and the environmental problems caused by excessive transport growth. In fact, the hon. Gentleman is in favour of motorway tolling—a controversial policy in many quarters.
	As well as examining the Liberal Democrat manifesto earlier today, I took a quick look at an interesting website—the hon. Gentleman's. The section entitled "Norman's Views" is interesting—and pretty long; he has lots of views on many subjects. On transport, he says:
	"on our roads we need to do what we can to persuade people out of their cars and onto public transport, without penalising those who have no alternative. That could for example mean road tolls on some of our motorways where a rail or air alternative exists. Someone driving from London to Edinburgh has a choice to use public transport."
	I take it that he is suggesting introducing a toll on the roads from London to Edinburgh. It could not be a motorway toll, because we do not have motorways going all the way from London to Edinburgh; obviously he is not aware of that fact. None the less, it is an interesting policy. I am not sure that it is supported by the Liberal Democrat Transport Minister in the Scottish Executive, or even by his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West. I do not know whether motorway tolling between London and Edinburgh is Liberal Democrat policy, but I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Lewes for his bravery in suggesting it. He is, however, not so brave as to suggest road tolls in his own constituency—in fact, on his website he says that road tolling would not be possible there. Perhaps that speaks for itself.
	In an intervention, I raised the proposal emanating from the French and German Governments and now being taken forward in the G8 for a tax on air travel. I should have thought that the Liberal Democrats would support that proposal. In view of the criticism that they have levelled at the Bush Administration—much of which I support—surely we must seek other ways of advancing the international agenda. I expected to hear positive support for—or at least interest in—the German and French proposal from the hon. Gentleman, but as hon. Members who were present for his speech will have noticed, he quickly skipped over my invitation to discuss emissions trading and did not endorse the proposal for an aviation tax.

David Chaytor: I have listened intently to this afternoon's debate. The forum in which it is taking place—the parliamentary Chamber of the House of Commons—is normally completely unsuited to the topic that we are discussing, yet it has been striking that speaker after speaker—with the possible exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz)—has stressed the importance of consensus and the building of coalitions. I do not criticise my hon. Friend for taking the opportunity to expose some of the political inconsistencies in one part of the Opposition, however.
	In my view, climate change is of such overwhelming significance—in the opinion of the chief scientific adviser, it represents the most significant threat that we face and a far greater threat than terrorism—that the conventional forms of debate and parliamentary procedures to which we are all accustomed are increasingly irrelevant if we are to rise to the challenge of formulating policy on the matter. It is striking, too, that I should follow a Conservative speaker, the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd), who could have delivered his speech from the Labour Benches. With the exception of the three words "as a Conservative", everything that he said could have been delivered by one of my colleagues or, conceivably, by anyone on the Liberal Democrat Benches.
	I want to dwell a little on how we can do more to build such consensus. I entered the House in 1997, when climate change was still a marginal issue that was poorly understood, if it was understood at all, by most Members. If we continue along the path that we have taken since 1997, with each party remaining nervous of the risks of setting out the radical options that are needed, we shall never make progress; we shall continue the drive towards the precipice. We must construct a new way of operating, and build new alliances between the parties.
	I was very taken by the remarks of the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) about the need for an external framework within which to operate, and which had public support. His analogy of the sub-contracting of responsibility for interest rates to the Bank of England was an interesting one. I do not know whether we could get an independent body to establish a national carbon budget or achieve all-party agreement on such a budget or some other framework, but the right hon. Gentleman made exactly the right analogy and pointed us in the right direction.
	There are already good examples of cross-party agreement and working on this issue. Only this morning, several of us here attended the inaugural meeting of the all-party group on climate change, whose chairman is my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell (Colin Challen). We launched the 25-5 challenge, in which Members are urged personally to commit to an annual 5 per cent. reduction in their own CO 2 emissions. I think that that is imaginative, that it will take off and that it will gain an increasing measure of public support.
	In addition, the all-party globe group, of which I am the secretary and the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) is the chairman, will hold an important conference here this weekend that will bring in parliamentarians from all across the globe, including China, India, Russia and south America, and which will be addressed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The guest of honour on Sunday evening will be Senator John McCain, a potential presidential candidate. These coalitions and alliances are forming and a huge amount of work is being done to reach consensus.
	If, however, we are to continue to build consensus, we have to redefine the nature of the problem. To date, it has been defined as a conventional domestic political issue of redistribution. The whole argument is about who will gain and who will lose, and what are the consequences of any change of policy or redistribution. Hence, when the issue of the role of fuel duty arises, the problem is defined as one of hitting the long-suffering motorist; when the question of the climate change levy arises, the problem is defined as yet another burden on business. We must move away from that.
	To support my argument, I want to introduce the other issue of fossil fuels apart from the science of climate change. The right hon. Member for West Dorset made the point that it did not really matter whether the science was 100 per cent. accurate, as it made sense in its own right to start to make the move to renewable energy sources and a renewable energy system—whether the transfer is from a carbon economy to a hydrogen economy remains to be seen. However, there is another problem that is hardly discussed at all—the whole question of the finite nature of fossil fuels. The purpose of making the shift away from fossil fuels is not merely because of the threat of climate change, although that is the primary reason at the moment, but because we all know that fossil fuels are finite and will one day be exhausted.
	It is remarkably interesting to see in the press in the last two, three or four weeks the increasing number of articles not only about the rising price of oil, but about the onset of peak oil—the concept of the peak of global oil production, after which oil production will inevitably decrease. Many Members will be familiar with the work of various scientists on peak oil. There is now an Association for the Study of Peak Oil, and that Colin Campbell is the leading exponent of the theory. The argument put forward by that association is that the peak will be reached in 2010—far earlier than was previously thought. That does not mean that oil will be exhausted by 2010, but it does mean that from 2010 onwards oil will inevitably be in shorter supply, and as current consumption increases new discoveries of oil will decline and the price of oil will continuously increase.
	Both on the ground of responding to climate change and the ground of increasing scarcity of fossil fuels as each year goes by, we must redefine the nature of the problem as not an issue of sharing the pain within each nation, but as an issue of national security.
	It seems to me that perhaps this year the public throughout the United Kingdom will start to understand those problems as they have not done previously. That is partly because of the impact of the recent hot weather, partly because of stories about drought, partly because of the experience of the drought in France two years ago, partly because of the recent assessment given by the Italian Government of the excess mortality through drought in that country, and partly because of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's lead in placing the issue at the top of the agenda for the G8 meeting. As a result, the public mood is now far more receptive than ever before to more radical policies to respond to the threats of climate change and the finite nature of fossil fuels.
	To do that, however, we cannot argue among ourselves about punishing motorists or putting more burdens on business—we have to identify the problem as one of national security, and we therefore need a framework that will work in the national interest and help to move us towards self-sufficiency in energy.

John Barrett: I want to join the consensus that was building—with one notable exception—in the Chamber. The exception in question has clearly spent many hours surfing Liberal Democrat websites, and long may he continue to do so.
	The G8 summit in Gleneagles will focus on two themes: climate change and Africa. This time, the public are more involved than ever before, partly because of the celebrities involved, but also because of what happened 20 years ago, when we saw—for many people, it was the first time—the drought in Ethiopia on our television screens. When Michael Buerk brought those images into our homes, we saw the harsh reality of life on the edge: men, women and children suffering from malnutrition, with those who managed to survive the journey trekking miles to camps for a meagre food supply. These events triggered Live Aid, which connected many people, through television and music, to this vitally important issue. Twenty years on, we have to ask, what has changed?
	To coincide with the G8 we have the Live8 concert in Edinburgh, which is taking place at the Murrayfield stadium in my constituency. The Make Poverty History march will also take place in Edinburgh, on 2 July. We are expecting in excess of 100,000 people to march through the city centre, and to make a "white band" of people to send a message to the leaders at Gleneagles. I invite others to join that march.
	When we saw those images in Ethiopia 20 years ago, a drought was expected once every 10 years; now, a drought is expected approximately once every three years. Fewer Ethiopians are dying from malnutrition, but more are on permanent food aid. We now see humanitarian disasters unfolding elsewhere in Africa. Many factors are contributing to the disaster in Darfur, in Sudan: tribal conflict, Government corruption, too many guns in the country and no clean water supply. But one vital factor that is directly linked to the troubles is the increasing size of the deserts, and the battle for scarce resources such as water and fertile land. We in this country think that we are witnessing extreme changes in our weather, but those who will suffer most are the most vulnerable, who live in the world's poorest countries. Many young children in such countries will never see adulthood.
	At the other, extreme end of the scale, approximately 100 million people in the United States are overweight. Interestingly, Paul Higgins, an earth systems scientist from the university of California, reckoned that if the food energy used to feed excessively those 100 million Americans were turned into an exercise regime, and if the basic resources spent on producing that food were spent differently, that in itself would impact on the climate.
	I have tried to make some small contribution myself. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) will be pleased to hear that I gave up my four-wheel drive car and went instead for a fuel-efficient model. We cannot just pass the buck and blame this problem on the Government; we all have to accept responsibility for the results of our actions. However, the Government are in a unique position because of their presidency of the G8.
	Global warming is not an abstract or distant threat. It is real and current, and must be dealt with as a matter of urgency. The G8 nations at Gleneagles account for 47 per cent. of global CO 2 emissions, so it goes without saying that the G8 nations themselves, acting globally, can make a real difference. Tougher international action is crucial to combat climate change and it is time to wake up to the threat before it is too late.
	Climate variation is now an accepted part of the natural cycle of our planet. We know that, historically, temperatures have been both higher and lower than they are now. However, what makes the current pattern of climate change so worrying is the pace of change. Projections predict an increase in the average surface temperature of between 1.5o and 6o over the period from 1990 to 2100. That is between two and 10 times larger than the value of observed warming over the 20th century and it is without precedent during the last 10,000 years. Global warming will affect us at home and abroad and it will have social and environmental impacts. Indeed, it will impact on almost every aspect of our lives. It is not surprising that our own chief scientific adviser said that the threat from climate change was greater than that from global terror.
	The Kyoto agreement was a good and positive first step towards tackling the issue, but even if the US signed up to it tomorrow, it would not solve many of the problems. We have to remember that the agreement is very much a first step—and a modest one at that. For example, it does not include many developing countries and the largest polluter of all has not signed up to it. Furthermore, many scientists believe that even if the countries producing CO 2 emissions signed up and kept to the limits, it would still not be enough to tackle the problem. The agreement aims to reduce emissions from industrialised countries only by about 5 per cent., whereas the consensus of many climate scientists is that in order to avoid the worst consequences of global warming, emissions may have to be cut up to the order of 60 per cent. across the board. That is why we should not put all our eggs in the Kyoto basket.
	With that in mind, it is disappointing that so many countries have still failed to meet even those most modest targets. Indeed, it seems increasingly likely that the UK will miss its own Kyoto targets. It does not give the Prime Minister the strongest platform from which to argue for greater efforts from others to combat climate change when we seem unable to put our own house in order. I very much hope, though, that our own failings will not have an adverse effect on the Prime Minister's chances of brokering an agreement on climate change at the summit.
	I am sure that Members from across the House will have shared my disappointment and concern at the news that documents on climate change for the G8 have been watered down. It seems that the US is still failing to concede that climate change exists as a problem at all. I find it extraordinary that doubt is being cast on the notion that the world is getting hotter.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes has branded George W. Bush the environment's "public enemy No. 1", and I am inclined to agree with him. It is unacceptable that the US—the world's largest polluter, responsible for more than a third of the world's pollution—refuses to take its responsibilities seriously. It is unacceptable that the US President, George W. Bush, simply ignores the advice of his own scientists and continues to refuse to take action to deal with pollution or to accept his responsibility under the Kyoto treaty. There is a serious risk that the US President will prevent the summit from agreeing to realistic and timely actions on climate change and that the rest of the G8 will let him get away with it. While the Prime Minister likes to believe that he can sway the President's judgment on these matters, I believe that, when it comes to climate change, he may have little or no influence at all.
	A leaked draft document on climate change for the G8 summit spells out as good as any other the danger of inaction. It says:
	"If we miss this opportunity and fail to give a clear sense of direction, then we will be locked into an unsustainable future that will threaten our long-term security and prosperity."
	I could not agree more. The G8 summit must reach a positive agreement on climate change. It is too important an issue to be lost among international squabbles and petty transatlantic rivalries. I urge the Prime Minister not to let that happen. We must move towards consensus in the House. If the parties in this Parliament cannot agree, how can we expect the leaders at Gleneagles to agree?

Edward Vaizey: That one, and that one. Nuclear power is a proven technology. Nuclear stations can supply carbon-free energy for the nation in the sort of amounts that cannot be matched by renewables.

Edward Vaizey: Nuclear power for the whole country at the cost of 40 domes is cheap at the price.
	The vital aspect and the Cinderella of this debate is energy conservation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd) pointed out, 25 per cent. of CO 2 emissions comes from our homes. I hope that the Government will seriously consider reforming stamp duty laws to reward energy-efficient homes and reforming building regulations so that new homes are built with energy-efficient methods.

Andrew George: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey), who rightly emphasised the fact that science and technology have a role to play, although we have not today fully explored the issue of nuclear power. It is too late now for me to run through the issues, but perhaps the House will have an opportunity in the future to debate them.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) rightly reminded the House that the headline issue for the G8 in Gleneagles next week is addressing the problem of global poverty, especially in the poorest countries. I have some misgivings, however, about the way in which the G8 agenda has been set. The eight richest countries—we might call them the R8—will discuss the problems of the poorest. We should apply the maxim "Never about them without them". In other words, we should not talk about the poorest countries—perhaps we could call them the P8—without inviting them to be present. The R8 should not discuss the P8 without eyeballing them at the same time, to ensure that the R8 fully understand and speak to the countries that will be affected by the decisions that come from the top table.
	In the lead-up to the summit—of grey-suited men discussing complex issues—it has been encouraging to see many members of the public drawn into the debate through Live8 and the Make Poverty History campaign. Now that their passions have been aroused, I hope that those people will not feel only a momentary compassion on arguably the most serious issue facing the globe at present—the poverty of those in developing countries—but that their compassion will continue in the weeks and months ahead. As people leave the rallies in Edinburgh and the concerts in London, at the Eden project in Cornwall and elsewhere, I hope that they will carry on the campaign. I hope that they will go to supermarkets and ask, "Where does the food come from? Can you reassure me that my purchase of this product will not damage the very people I have been campaigning about, who are the reason why I am wearing this wristband?" People need to apply the principles of that compassion to their activities. They want information and reassurance, and I hope that such continuing interest will be one of the outcomes of the campaign.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) was, as ever, forensic and passionate on the issue of climate change and spoke strongly for the motion. As the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) explained, the debate as a whole has demonstrated the difficulty of persuading others as well as ourselves of the consequences of our actions. When we bring a hammer down on our finger we can see the connection between the hammer, the finger and pain. We learn from that and we make future judgments on that clear relationship. However, when we turn on the ignition of our car or decide to go on holiday, we do not necessarily see the immediate connection between that choice and some meteorological catastrophe elsewhere in the world or some unwelcome climate change that undermines our efforts to eradicate poverty in developing countries. But, as the right hon. Member for West Dorset argued—I think fairly—we need to apply a precautionary principle to this matter before it is too late. If we are wrong, at least we will have achieved some improvements in the way that we live. On the balance of scientific opinion, however, I feel comfortable with the line that we are taking, and it is clear from the Government's line and the policies of all parties that we are going in the right direction in tackling this issue, about which, to be fair, there is still some uncertainty.
	I shall try to skirt over the Minister's selective quotations from manifestos and so on, and his failure to acknowledge the fact that when non-governmental organisations requested political parties to sign up to their four key commitments at the time of the last general election, we signed up to them too. Perhaps he did not surf the websites that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) did, otherwise he would have uncovered that.
	One of the main points that the Minister made in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes was that Britain is leading the world in the action that it is taking on climate change. He asked what other G8 country was on track to meet the Kyoto target? What other European country is on track to meet the Kyoto target? I look for reassurance from the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), who will wind up the debate in a moment, that those words are not a sign that we are going to see the politics of the lowest common denominator. That would be most unwelcome and I hope that the Government will continue to be sincere in their language and ensure that we are attempting at least to set the highest possible standards.
	The Minister said that there had been a decline in the number of people who need to be converted to understand the consequences of our lifestyles and their impact on climate change. I think we know where to find those on whom we primarily need to concentrate; they are some rather large and difficult nuts to crack, mostly across the other side of the pond. We might argue that we are—I hope that we are—witnessing the last days of the modern-day equivalent of the Flat Earth Society as far as that is concerned. I urge the Minister and the Prime Minister to do all that they can to ensure that the United States is seen to be isolated in its unwillingness to act in the way that the UK and other countries are prepared to act.
	The Minister said that the G8 should not set targets for the rest of the world and I agree that it should not take a patronising approach, although the General Secretary of the United Nations has written to the G8, encouraging it to ensure that it at least sets an agenda that can be pursued still further.
	The right hon. Member for West Dorset attempted to pour oil on troubled waters, to be conciliatory and to offer to adopt the role of peacemaker in the rather more fiery exchanges that we witnessed between my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes and the Minister. He applied his intellect and principles to the issue rather than, if he does not mind my saying so, his expertise. I think that, on balance, he made a significant contribution to our debate. I do not say that simply because he announced that Conservative Members would support the Liberal Democrats in the Division Lobby this evening, although on that basis I shall resist attacking some of the past Conservative policies and what they have achieved.
	The right hon. Gentleman made a significant point: we in all three parties, as well as other parties, agree that we must face up to some very difficult economic challenges in persuading our electorates that we must make progress. In fact, we need to sell such messages to our electorates. I hope that we can stick together and help each other to sell these difficult decisions and conclusions. Having gone from the sunlit uplands of conciliatory debate, we went to the depths of partisanship with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith. However, it is a pity to end on that point, and I look forward to the Under-Secretary of State's response, but I urge the House to support the Liberal Democrat motion this evening.

Ben Bradshaw: This has been an excellent debate. I cannot recall a debate on an issue of such importance that has commanded such consensus across the House. We heard good contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) and for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz)—perhaps his speech was not so consensual as others, but he can claim as an excuse provocation by the Liberal Democrats in Edinburgh about the congestion charge there.
	We heard a good contribution from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett), who should be commended for his action in getting rid of his 4x4 vehicle. He might like to know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs often refers to me, only half in jest, as a one-man Government carbon-offsetting scheme, because I gave up my car 12 years ago and now rely mainly on my bicycle.
	There was a good contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr. Reed), who set an example to the House in his brevity. I am sure that the debate will continue and he may wish to make a longer speech in future on the issue that he mentioned. We also heard a good contribution from the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey).
	It is invidious to single out a Member for praise in such debates, and I do so at the risk of ruining what otherwise I suspect would be a promising career, but the contribution from the hon. Member for Ruislip- Northwood (Mr. Hurd) was particularly impressive. It was most refreshing to hear a Conservative Member say that the European Union could play a positive leadership role in a major policy issue. [Interruption.] I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if that has damaged him, but it was not meant in that spirit.
	Let me bring the House back to the focus of the debate: next week's very important summit at Gleneagles. The House recognises that that meeting in itself has stimulated debate and provided a boost to the vital work that is happening at regional, national and international levels. Indeed, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) acknowledged that in what he said about the real progress that is being made at state level in the United States, partly as a result of the British Government giving the issue such a high profile.
	We always knew that addressing climate change during our G8 presidency would be tough. There are real differences of opinion about the best way to respond to the challenge. That is why the summit is so important and shows how the G8 functions best when taking on the big issues of the day and reaching out to other key nations.
	Our aims for the summit are threefold: first, to secure agreement about the importance of the issue and the need to cut greenhouse gas emissions and to take urgent action; secondly, to find practical ways to speed up the development and deployment of new technologies, both in the G8 and in developing countries, using a comprehensive Gleneagles plan of action, covering energy efficiency, power generation, research and development, investment and financing, as well as adaptation to climate change; and, thirdly, to reach an agreement to continue dialogue on climate change, clean energy and sustainable development that will complement the existing UN process.
	There has been much debate this afternoon about the position of the United States and whether we should try to persuade the US to sign up to the Kyoto protocol. That has never been our aim. We remain committed to the Kyoto protocol, as do the other signatories. The US, at national level, takes a different line—that is a matter of fact—but there are significant areas of common ground. Just because we have different views on the Kyoto protocol, it does not mean that the US cannot work with Europe and the emerging economies on measures to tackle climate change. The G8 summit provides an opportunity to discuss with the US and those emerging economies what we can do to bring together energy, environment and development policies to create the political will necessary to succeed.
	On this issue, some of the consensus that built up in the rest of the debate was challenged. Although stressing the importance, as he saw it, of getting the United States on board for an agreement, the hon. Member for Lewes seemed to suggest that he would rather have a better agreement without the US than a weak one with it. However, he acknowledged that we can continue to do the good work that we have been doing on the basis of a coalition of the willing. We will continue to do that.
	The right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) used his vivid analogy of pushing a heavy boulder up a steep slope to suggest that it was important that Gleneagles results in our going an inch up the slope. He appeared to say that he was worried that we were being too ambitious. I do not accept that we are being too ambitious and therefore face the risk of failing, which would be seen as a defeat. We have charted a wise and careful course and, by and large in the debate, hon. Members resisted the temptation, based on misleading press reports that appeared a few days ago, to prejudge what is likely to be achieved at Gleneagles.
	There was also not the degree of consensus that I would have liked on what the UK Government have achieved in terms of showing the leadership at home that we can deploy internationally. It is important to remind the House that, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment said in his opening remarks, we are the only country apart from Sweden that is on course to meet our Kyoto obligations—and not just to meet them, but to exceed them. We are not on course to meet our own much more ambitious domestic targets for CO 2 emissions, but we are reviewing our climate change programme with the specific aim of getting back on track to meet those targets. As my hon. Friend also pointed out, Labour was the only political party at the last general election to have a specific pledge in our manifesto to that 20 per cent. cut by 2020.
	The right hon. Member for West Dorset made an interesting contribution to the debate about environmental gain and economic growth. This is an important debate to develop further even though we do not have the time to do so now. I urge him to look at the speech made by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood, who said that he wished that we would talk more about opportunities and not costs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North pointed out, this country has achieved cuts in our emissions while having robust economic growth, and we are now beginning to achieve a similar situation on waste. We are cutting waste production while growing our economy. It is no accident that the two countries that have done best on climate change—Sweden and the United Kingdom—have strong records on economic growth. I do not think that environmental gain and economic growth are incompatible; the opposite is true. It is only through sustainable development that we will protect the environment and achieve the sustainable economic growth that we all want.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North made several constructive suggestions about potential fiscal incentives. Many of us on both sides of the House agree that more fiscal incentives have a positive role to play in helping us to get our own and international targets back on track.
	Hon. Members understandably concentrated on Gleneagles but, as several pointed out, this issue is not just about the G8. It is also about the EU, and its leaders are already showing leadership and setting objectives based on the need to limit temperature increases to 2° C. We want to lead the international debate. We also recognise that the EU cannot do it alone. The international effort to tackle climate change will not succeed unless we get the US and the emerging economies talking. That is why we want Gleneagles to be the start of a new dialogue complementary to the UN process.
	I regret the fact that, in spite of the consensual nature of this debate, it looks as though the House is going to divide on the Liberal Democrat motion—

Peter Kilfoyle: I pay credit to the many local businesses and organisations that have taken advantage of the opportunities presented by Government initiatives and our status as an objective 1 area to reinvent themselves and turn the city's image and substance around over the past 20 years so that it is now a 21st-century city that, to use a cliché, is meeting all the challenges of a modern economy. The House may therefore wish to know why I have taken issue with the city council. I have many reasons for doing so, but I am particularly concerned about the way in which it conducts itself. While it is doing very good work in some areas—no one can take that away from it—it is manifestly failing the people of Liverpool in other areas. I shall give a few examples, focusing on people who most need the city council's help, including the poor, the homeless, council tenants, and voluntary sector organisations that depend on the council's assistance.
	There is a litany of mismanagement so that, in local eyes, the city has changed from a city of culture—a role that Liverpool will officially play under the present Administration in 2008—into a city about which the council could not care less. That tendency is particularly marked in the areas that I have the privilege to represent. I wish to put it on the record that two of the most deprived SOAs—super output areas—in the matrix of indices of deprivation produced by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister are in my constituency. The whole constituency is in the top 1 per cent. of combined deprivation indicators, and it relies extremely heavily on council intervention and Government initiatives to ensure that the people there can share in the opportunities enjoyed by many people in Liverpool and on Merseyside as a whole.
	The council continues to treat shabbily the people who most need its help. I shall give a few categories of people it ought to target, and pick out one or two recent examples to demonstrate the way in which they have been treated. This week, we learned of the classic case of Mrs. Janet Whalley, a badly disabled lady who dropped off her severely disabled son outside an after-school club—an initiative that the Government are rightly promoting. Because of a technical dispute over her blue-badge entitlement to disabled parking she was hauled before the courts. The magistrates were outraged, and threw the case out, saying that it should never have been brought. Mrs. Whalley was awarded £500 costs. That was not good enough for the council, which sacked her for gross misconduct—behaviour which no one in their right mind would attribute to a fair-minded employer.
	I came across the even better example of Nicola Foster, whose case falls into the homeless category. The homeless are always under pressure, but they are under particular pressure in Liverpool because of the city's regeneration, including new build and the Pathfinder project. The city is going through a period of transition, so we need to deal sensitively with cases at the margins or at the extremes that deserve help. Nicola Foster, unbelievably in modern times, has nine children. For two and a half years, she lived in a hostel near Sefton park. The council offered to rehouse the family in a hostel in Inverness. It wanted to deport a father, a mother and nine children to Inverness, because for two and a half years it had failed miserably to fulfil its duty of care towards those children. By the way, one of the children was offered a place at a local school where my wife used to teach, St. Finbar's, but because of the domestic situation the child has not been to school for two years. We should not be surprised at the indifference of Liverpool city council towards the child's schooling.
	Another area in which the council abuses the sensible procedures set up by central Government is in the statementing of children with special needs. Each Liverpool MP has a caseload that would stretch from one side of the Chamber to the other concerning people who cannot get a statement of their child's special needs. What makes the situation even more pernicious is that the council argues that there is no demand for special needs places in special schools, and closes down special schools so that it can realise the capital assets. The Government's policy has always been that children with special needs ought to be catered for in a setting appropriate to them. If inclusion is appropriate, that option should be chosen and we would not dissent from it. But if a special needs place in a special school is the appropriate setting, that is what should be offered.
	Many of our children are not getting that. I am dealing with the case of the child of a drug addict brought up by the grandmother, who got him into a secondary school. Because of his special needs, the school could not handle him—not that he was a bad kid, but he was hyperactive. That kid is now in a pupil referral unit for two hours a day, so not only is he not getting help from the very people to whom he ought to look for help, but his condition is being worsened daily by their neglect.
	I mentioned council tenants when I referred to Nicola Foster's case. Sometimes I despair of a city council that fails lamentably to look after its own stock and fiddles its figures by transferring the stock out and then claiming great success in upgrading the homes in its council stock. Government policies were designed to encourage more tenant involvement. No doubt the Minister would agree that we all want tenants to have—metaphorically, if not literally—a sense of ownership of the changes going on around them. We had a longstanding Liverpool Federation of Council Tenants and Residents Associations, which sent out a letter—I assume to my colleagues, as well as to me—on 17 June. The letter announces the closure of the federation and states:
	"This is a serious decision taken by our tenant members and tenant management board as it considered that tenant participation is currently so gravely undervalued by our city council that it severely impacts upon the wellbeing and functioning of a vibrant, independent tenant federation."
	The letter goes on to list the manifold problems that the federation has faced. It continues:
	"A strong, vibrant, informed and independent tenants movement is an asset to any city"—
	I say amen to that. However, the letter goes on:
	"The climate in this city does not foster a spirit of empowerment but relies upon a culture of repeated rhetoric of 'intentions' without ever considering the means by which 'intentions' are merely the first step of the organic process of change".
	That is eloquently put. That ought to be the case but, sadly, it is not so under Liverpool city council.
	The council has done some good things and there have been some good investments. There have also been some terrible failures, from the millennium centre on Chavasse park to the King's dock project to the Fourth Grace. Everywhere that the dead hand of the Liberal Democrat city council rests itself, one can guarantee that there will be confusion leading to failure. My great fear, which is shared by people in Liverpool, including business leaders, is that that will bring about the stagnation of ongoing projects.
	Indeed, only today, a newspaper headline read "Paradise 'Delayed'". It refers to the Paradise street project, which is the biggest of its kind in the country. It is a regeneration scheme into which Grosvenor—no mean operator in its own right—is putting £920 million. However, the man in charge of Grosvenor is now asking, "How can you deal with a council that repeatedly obfuscates and delays?" Those are the sentiments of a developer who has put a massive amount of money into the city.
	To show how far the city has come, I say in passing that I recall the Duke of Westminster commenting that he was happy for his daughters to go on a night out in Liverpool because he felt that they were safe there. That is another nail in the coffin of the myths about Liverpool that prevailed for many years. Happily, we have disposed of them. Liverpool is a relatively safe city. It is a good city for business to invest in and it is a prosperous city, which is evolving rapidly. However, the council is acting as a brake on such progress.
	That brake is felt most keenly in the areas where the good citizens of Liverpool who are least able to look after themselves could, in the past, turn to the council for succour. I wanted to be objective about the matter and I examined Liverpool city council's document "Improving performance—leading to excellence". It is subtitled "Achievements in 2004/05 against the corporate plan published in June 2004".
	I do not want to say that none of the objectives was met. Many of the council's objectives—not mine or the Government's—have been achieved. However, I have been through page after page headed "Well services, safe and sustainable neighbourhoods with optimum local accountability and influence over service management". That is the interface between council services and an efficient, well run council.
	The first example reads:
	"We did not achieve our target."
	The second example states:
	"We did not achieve our target."
	The third example contains a little bit of spin:
	"We have shown significant improvements in delays and narrowly missed our target."
	The fourth example reads:
	"We did not achieve our target".
	The fifth example states:
	"We marginally failed our target".
	The sixth example also involves spin:
	"Although we have significantly improved the actual numbers of carers who received a carer's assessment . . . the improvement has not been as pronounced."
	In other words, they failed. The final example reads:
	"We have not increased the take-up in the short-term break schemes."
	Social services had damning reports on the sort of social provision that they should make as opposed to the provision that they make.
	Alone, that might simply be another record of a poor council, whose position should be resolved at the ballot box. The citizens of Liverpool will have the opportunity to turn those people out—as they undoubtedly will—for their ineptitude in many aspects of their alleged competence. However, there is another phenomenon, on which the Minister, I hope, can throw some light.
	There was an extraordinary turn of events, involving the publication of a dossier, which the chief executive compiled on the manoeuvrings of the leader of the council and one of his spin doctors to force out the chief executive. It is an extraordinary document. In all my long time in politics, I have never known such an obvious conspiracy to force somebody out. The leader of the council made a de facto admission by reporting to the Standards Board. His actions were completely out of order.
	In the past week, the chief executive and the leader of the council have publicly kissed and made up. However, anyone who thinks that that is more than an Elastoplast on a rupture at the top of the council is much mistaken. My concern is not about those two people falling out but about the outcomes for the people and city of Liverpool. How can the matter be resolved? How can we ensure that the city council is operating according to the rules, and according to expectations, not only of the people as citizens, but those that the Government rightly hold of a council?
	I am mindful of the fact that, more than 20 years ago—I never thought I would hear myself say this—49 councillors were debarred and surcharged for the notional loss of £106,000. That became something of a cause célèbre at the time. Yet here we have a council wasting money by the bucketload on a daily basis, and whose two leading lights cannot agree on anything in the public arena. This is letting down the people of Liverpool, and I want to find out from the Minister what redress we have, through central Government, to ensure that it stops.